WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
AND IS SUBJECT TO:
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act…
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person…
(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
CITATION: R. v. B.V.R., 2008 ONCA 122
DATE: 20080221
DOCKET: C47591
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
ROSENBERG, SIMMONS and LAFORME JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
and
B.V.R.
Appellant
Douglas A. Grace for the appellant
Robert Gattrell for the respondent
Heard and endorsed: February 19, 2008
On appeal from conviction entered by Justice D. Baltman of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting as a summary conviction appeal judge, dated July 27, 2007, overturning the appellant’s acquittal by Justice G. Brophy of the Ontario Court of Justice dated January 9, 2007.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We agree with the reasons of the Appeal Judge. The burden was on the accused to demonstrate a violation of her s. 10(b) rights. There was no evidence of any violation of her rights. The appellant did not testify and nothing in the agreed facts established any violation of her rights. The fact that the police did not record that the accused did not wish to speak to a lawyer did not establish that she did want to speak to a lawyer or that the police failed in some way to comply with s. 10(b).
[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.